Questions about 3D TV

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4
Forum Member
I love 3D films in the cinema, so I am seriously considering changing my TV to a 3D TV, so I can watch 3D on Sky. However I have a few questions which maybe someone who already has 3D could answer:
Which type of tv is best - LCD, LED, or plasma? I can only fit a 40inch tv in my room, if that makes a difference.
Do the glasses fit over prescription glasses, as I need my specs on in the evening when my eyes get tired!
Is the 3D effect worse, as good as, or better than 3D movies in the cinema.
Thanks for any answers :)
«13

Comments

  • chenkschenks Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i just bought a 3d tv (samsung 40" lcd) and the glassed fit over my normal glasses just fine (although i guess it depends entirely on the 3d glasses and your glasses).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4
    Forum Member
    Cool, thanks chenks. How is the picture, as I was looking at Samsung?
  • chenkschenks Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    having never seen any 3d in a cinema i can't compare it to anything.
    it's fine, but it's more of a gimmick in my opinion.
    lots of movies using 3d when they don't really need to.

    i didn't buy the TV specifically for the 3d though, it just happened to have that capability.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 127
    Forum Member
    Plasma is technically better, I have a Panasonic 42" Plasma and its picture is stunning.

    However, Sky 3D is actually half the resolution of Full HD - leaving you with less detail compared to 3D Blu Ray. Remember, shops are clever. The 3D you see there is Full HD. Sky 3D simply isn't.

    However, its impressive enough :) It wont change the way you watch TV and if your not too bothered about being one of the first few thousand to get it in the UK, wait until there is more content and until the prices drop.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 120
    Forum Member
    It is gimmicky but the kids enjoy it. I needed a new tv so I just happened to choose a tv which was 3D, not sure I'd fork out to get one specifically for it.

    Also I think the bigger the screen the better for this, I imagine it is hard to make out the 3D on smaller screens.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 147
    Forum Member
    I would definately say the bigger the screen the better - I have a 40" LCD 3D and while the 3D is amazing - It just sometimes doesn't seem as immersive as it could be. A bigger screen would certainly combat that. Also while the prev poster is correct about Sky being half HD - Its still a very good picture and the difference is actually not as big as some people make out - or perhaps I'm not as nit-picky as some.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1
    Forum Member
    Having seen most this years movies released in the cinema in 3d - in comparison the quality of sky 3d is comparable ,one point I would make though is sky 3d content or the actual lack of it to be honest ,the 3d channel on sky repeats everything dozens of times a week with only football and rugby getting a refresh at the weekend but even this gets repeated,most of the movies are broadcast in a pay per view basis,which is quite greedy since the only people who get sky 3d are the top level subscribers ,which seems unfair to charge further charges,

    On the technical side all 3d formats are equally good lg samsung and panasonic, I personally have a samsung 50 plasma which is quite good but to be honest I think 3d requires a much bigger screen to get the best of it,don't get me wrong it's good ,but on a 40 inch screen it's a joke really ,just like looking through a box with the bottom out of it

    It's clearly not just a gimmick and is worth investing in as it adds so much more to a film ,but buy big ,or as big as you can afford
    Any other questions feel free to ask
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 314
    Forum Member
    Cool, thanks chenks. How is the picture, as I was looking at Samsung?

    I have the 40in samsung 7000 and I think the picture all round (standard and high definition and 3d) is very high class. Also I use the 3d glasses with prescription glasses underneath and it works fine. But I think 3d is more of a bonus and I wouldn't buy just for that.
  • El GuapoEl Guapo Posts: 4,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can you get Sky 3D without Sky World package?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 223
    Forum Member
    El Guapo wrote: »
    Can you get Sky 3D without Sky World package?

    Not at the moment :(
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    3d is good BUT the non sports coverage is rubbish
    Channel should be renamed 3d repeats
  • El GuapoEl Guapo Posts: 4,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bengunn wrote: »
    Not at the moment :(

    Thought so as a guy I work with has just got a 3D tv and is gonna get Sky HD so I told him about this so he said he would not bother maybe.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7
    Forum Member
    I've had a 47" Samsung LCD for a while now and have one gripe, I only watch sports on it, mainly football. The problem is that in some grounds the cameras cannot be positioned low enough to give proper depth perception. The worst I've seen so far is Anfield, if the game is from there then I switch the 3D off. The recent El Classico, didn't impress either.
  • chenkschenks Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    it's the LE40C750 i have (1080p 200hz) and the picture is a great improvement from the previous samsung i had even on SD.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just wait to your analog section fails & despite the alleged 1 yr warrenty u get told to piss off as analogue is going to be switched off in 2 years time
  • chenkschenks Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hx1yamaha wrote: »
    Just wait to your analog section fails & despite the alleged 1 yr warrenty u get told to piss off as analogue is going to be switched off in 2 years time

    why would anyone still be using the analogue tuner.
  • mickzmickz Posts: 316
    Forum Member
    Maybe Sky should have waited 4 years to put 3d on, until there were enough films to put a different one
    on every couple of hours . Raise eyebrows, same as always there are other channels if you don't like this one. :D

    Just seen advert for Avatar and thats free , so after spending half an hour convincing OH
    to buy it and it's FREE... :))
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its simply cos analog ceefax is better & faster at finding pages than the digital version with its sub sub sub page menu system
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a fairytale to say there is not enough 3-D films available because many years ago I used to go to the cinemas and watch every 3-D film that was available and I'm sure they are still in the lists in the archives.
    Blockbuster film like Sangeree comes to mind.
    Watching that, we witnessed the first 3-D accident where this old lady ducked to avoid the knife flying out of the screen and hit her head on the seat in front and was spark out unconscious in the gangway

    Now that's what I call 3D realism!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 66
    Forum Member
    I bought the Samsung 40U8790 LED TV yesterday and I must say the 3D is just as good as the cinema.

    There is Caroline on anytime at the moment in 3D. Avatar is showing tonight and then repeated over the week. David Attenbourghs flying Dinosour program tomorrow looks good too.

    I have noticed that a lot of the content on the 3D channel is being repeated but then I didn't buy the TV to what 3D all the time, just from time to time maybe once or twice a week.

    The sports although seem good are not as good depth or engaging as the films.

    Even the normal picture quality on the LED Samsungs are really good a lot better than my old Philips LCD TV.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 147
    Forum Member
    hx1yamaha wrote: »
    It's a fairytale to say there is not enough 3-D films available because many years ago I used to go to the cinemas and watch every 3-D film that was available and I'm sure they are still in the lists in the archives.
    Blockbuster film like Sangeree comes to mind.

    But aren't most of the old 3D films Anaglyph??? As such they would be incompatible with current 3D technology. You would still have to watch them with the blue/red headachegivers until somebody decided to convert them to current 3D technology
  • HDCriticalFanHDCriticalFan Posts: 1,897
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gyran_tol wrote: »
    Even the normal picture quality on the LED Samsungs are really good a lot better than my old Philips LCD TV.

    Can someone just confirm my understanding here - that the current generation of large (i.e. 32in +) TV screens are "just" LED backlit LCD screens.

    I was under the impression that the only true LED screens were limited to PC-monitor size ... and cost thousands.

    Or am I behind the times here :confused:

    I kinda hope so ... I would love to be able to buy a state of the art 55 inch LED screen for about two grand !
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 314
    Forum Member
    think you're confusing LED and OLED - see here


    http://www.oled-display.net/oled-television
  • roddydogsroddydogs Posts: 10,298
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The biggest question is "are they as good on non 3D content as a non 3D set. Anybody?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 314
    Forum Member
    roddydogs wrote: »
    The biggest question is "are they as good on non 3D content as a non 3D set. Anybody?

    can only speak for the samsung ue40c7000 and it's by far the best picture I've seen on 2d sd and hd and the 3d pictures is very high quality too apart from a little 'ghosting' which doesn't bother me too much.
    I agree with comment above about the positioning of cameras for the 3d football by the way.
Sign In or Register to comment.